A New Atriplex Species Drom Mauritius
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Skvortsovia: 1(1):12 – 74 (2013) Skvortsovia ISSN 2309-6497 (Print) Copyright: © 2013 Russian Academy of Sciences http://skvortsovia.uran.ru/ ISSN 2309-6500 (Online) Article A nomenclator for Homalium (Salicaceae) Wendy L. Applequist Missouri Botanical Garden, P. O. Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299, USA Email: [email protected] Received: 28 June 2013 | Accepted by Rafaël H.A. Govaerts: 2 October 2013 | Published on line: 26 November 2013 Abstract A nomenclator for Homalium Jacq. (Salicaceae) is provided that lists all validly published names with correct author citations, places of publication, nomenclatural synonyms, known or putative Types, current status and accepted names, and any known nomenclatural problems. Designations not validly published are identified as such. Fewer than 150 published species are estimated to be currently accepted worldwide. Keywords: Homalium, nomenclator, nomenclature, Salicaceae Homalium Jacq. is a pantropical woody genus with centers of diversity in Madagascar and Malesia. The genus has usually been classified within Flacourtiaceae (e.g., Warburg, 1893; Gilg, 1925; Lemke, 1988), though older literature occasionally placed it within Samydaceae (e.g., Bentham and Hooker, 1867), a segregate family Homaliaceae (Brown, 1818; Gagnepain, 1916) or even a greatly expanded and heterogeneous Bixaceae (Baillon, 1873). Following the demonstration by Chase et al. (2002) that Flacourtiaceae were polyphyletic, Homalium and its relatives are now generally included within Salicaceae sensu lato. Important treatments that have dealt with the entirety of Homalium as presently circumscribed include those of Bentham (1859), who first united Blakwellia Lam. with Homalium, and the very brief summaries of Warburg (1893) and Gilg (1925). Infrageneric classification still largely reflects Warburg’s treatment, with a few nomenclatural corrections and additions; however, there is reason to believe that that classification does not reflect phylogenetic relationships. Subgenera are separated by the single character of stamen number; the largest sections within each subgenus encompass considerable morphological and geographic diversity and are defined only by the absence of the derived characters that distinguish smaller, more cohesive sections. Limited chloroplast sequence data (unpub. data, D. Bogler et al.) suggest that neither the subgenera nor the largest and most problematic sections are monophyletic, and further, that at least two small Malagasy genera may be embedded within Homalium as presently circumscribed; it is therefore 12 possible that infrageneric classification will change considerably in the future. The most recent taxonomist to deal with almost all of the species of Homalium was Sleumer, who published a series of regional revisions (Sleumer, 1954; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1980; 1985; also Sleumer and Bosser, 1980) that were of high quality but in some regions now need to be updated to deal with new material. Other recent authors have dealt with only small portions of the genus in the course of floristic accounts. The compilation of a complete nomenclator for Homalium is seen as a useful tool to facilitate worldwide reassessment of the genus for two major reasons. First, a number of nomenclatural errors and uncertainties have appeared in literature and databases, including incorrect author citations or places of first valid publication, confusion regarding the correct typification of names and inappropriate labeling of specimens as types, and inclusion in databases and synonymies of designations that have never been validly published. Future revisionary studies will have to deal with these issues, and a nomenclator that provides correct citations with places of publication, nomenclatural synonyms, known locations of types or original material, and known nomenclatural problems for all validly published names, insofar as possible, will facilitate that work. Second, a nomenclator offers an opportunity to estimate how many known species exist. Sleumer (1954) estimated that the genus comprised 180 to 200 species, a range that has been generally accepted by later references. The compilation of a complete list of names allows a thorough review of regional revisions and floristic treatments to determine which of these names are currently in use and which have been relegated to synonymy. The following nomenclator provides citations of the correct author and first identifiable place of publication for all known names pertaining to species and infraspecific taxa of Homalium. Standard abbreviations, as given in Brummitt and Powell (1992) and Taxonomic Literature (TL-2; Stafleu and Cowan, 1976–1988) or BPH-2 (Bridson, 2004), are used for authors and titles. Incorrect spelling used in the place of publication and subject to automatic correction is given parenthetically, except where the only change is in capitalization of the epithet. To facilitate reference to original descriptions, full page ranges are given for protologues of names of new taxa. The basionym, if one exists, and other nomenclatural synonyms are listed for each name. For both brevity and convenience, binomials in genera other than Homalium (mostly, Blakwellia Lam.) are listed only in the synonymy of the corresponding name in Homalium, where such exist; a short separate section of binomials in other genera has been provided that includes only names for which there is no corresponding 13 combination in Homalium. Any issues or questions regarding the application, legitimacy, typification, or orthography of a name are discussed as a part of an appropriate individual name entry. Generic-level synonyms and names of infrageneric taxa are separately listed at the beginning of the nomenclator, the latter in descending order of rank. Several unranked names are validly published but have no standing as regards priority except in cases of homonymy (cf. Arts. 37.3 and 53.4 of the International Code of Nomenclature [ICN; McNeill et al., 2012]). Statements regarding the synonymy of infrageneric names are based on their current circumscriptions and published literature asserting synonymy (as noted above, some of these circumscriptions may need to be revised in future). Finally, two concluding sections dispose of excluded names and designations that have been indexed in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) or TROPICOS or used in key references but that are not validly published. Names in boldface are accepted in recent literature dealing with the region of origin. A count of these names suggests that fewer than 150 previously published species are currently recognized. Names that are not in boldface have been treated as synonyms by the most authoritative recent treatment(s) available from their region of origin; for these, the accepted names used in those treatments are given in boldface and italicized, and one or more references that reflect that use are cited, with critical revisionary treatments preferred where available. A few names are of uncertain standing due to lack of evidence for, or significant disagreement regarding, their status; these are marked with an asterisk. Names of Pacific island species published by St. John (1977) and not thereafter critically evaluated in any other literature are treated as accepted but should be regarded with caution pending further study, since that author had a particular reputation for overdescription of species (cf. Wagner, 1999, Wagner and Shannon, 1999). The known or probable locations of type specimens are derived from information in published literature, including duplicates mentioned among cited specimens and authors’ known working locations, and from online databases including JSTOR Global Plants, the Kew Herbarium Catalogue, Harvard University Herbaria, and Australia’s Virtual Herbarium (Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, 2013). Herbarium acronyms are as specified in Index Herbariorum (Thiers, continuously updated). Places of publication of later typifications are noted. Types marked with “!” are those for which high-quality digital images (or microfiches from historical herbaria) were seen to confirm their existence and label data; to 14 date, few of these have been physically observed. All necessary lectotypifications or neotypifications are therefore deferred pending critical study of material. A few names for African species had two or more syntypes and authors who used primarily material that was held at B and destroyed during World War II. Sleumer (1973, 1975) described the B duplicates of his preferred syntypes as “B † lectotype” and other duplicates of those as “isolectotypes.” He presumably saw and annotated the specimens at B before they were destroyed. However, since the designation of a type occurs only upon effective publication (Art. 7.9 of the ICN; McNeill et al., 2012) and the ICN effectively requires that designated specimens must actually exist (Arts. 8.1 and 9.12), Sleumer’s published choices of already-destroyed lectotypes appear to have no nomenclatural standing. When only one isolectotype was mentioned (as for, e.g., H. adenostephanum Mildbr.), one might presume that that duplicate, being the only surviving original material not termed a syntype, had thereby been designated as a new lectotype (use of the wrong term being a correctable error under Art. 9.9 of the ICN). However, for H. bullatum Gilg, Sleumer (1973) cited duplicates of the putative lectotype at twelve different herbaria as “isolectotypes.” Since Sleumer’s use of “isolectotype” did not imply an intention to single